Talk:Clitoral hood reduction

US

only after the woman undergoes a pre-operative psychological screening, and only if the woman afterwards remains so decided — yet also recommended that the vaginal surgery can be performed if the surgeon deems it medically necessary for her health.^[10]?

What about the situation in other countries? Is this only in US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulknerck2 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 November 2012

Hoodplasty

I included a link to this term because one of the references supports it. I am debating if we should just redirect this term here though. While 'hoodplasty' can have a broader meaning of ANY surgical alterations to the clitoral hood, TBH reduction's the only one I've heard of.

Before doing that I thought I'd ask, has anyone heard of any modifications to the hood other than reduction (such as enlargening or reshaping without reduction) that would warrant a separate article or disambiguation? Ranze (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture

The featured picture does not solely show a hood reduction, it also shows a reduction in labia minor. I think this might be a bit confusing to readers. I am hoping we might be able to replace this with a more appropriate feature which only shows the article topic's procedure occuring so that it's effects not be confused with labia reduction which does not always have to be done in conjunction with it. Ranze (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to OWK for replacing image:Wiki clitoral hood reduction before & After.JPG with File:Clitoral hood reduction in adult caucasian female.jpg so we still have a feature. That said, and while it is an improvement over the previous where there was clear description and visual indicatin of labial reduction, I can't help but wonder if there was labial reduction in this new one as well. The removed fleshy bits seem to go down a lot further than I would expect the prepuce to. Are we certain that labia minoria hanging were not also excised? Ranze (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not a pro on this. I found it on the german article I think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Circumcision See also link

With this edit, Callinus removed the See also section, which consisted of a link to the Circumcision article, stating, "per WP:NPOV I'm removing the see also section - this needs to be justified as to why there is a comparison to male circumcision - elective surgery is not performed on infants like circumcision." I reverted, replying, "Not a WP:NPOV violation. It's here per WP:See also. It's a relevant link, being the only procedure on male anatomy that compares to this one."

I'll alert WP:Med to this matter for input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

the see also section as indicated [1] is relevant...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: Callinus replied at WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about what's going on here. Although the frequency differs (and laws differ) depending on where around the world we're talking about, members of both sexes can be the subject of both voluntary and involuntary surgeries. @Callinus: can you explain your objection more clearly? I'm not understanding what rationale you're trying to communicate with this edit summary. "See also" usually brings up related topics if they are not already mentioned in the article, what's the problem with bringing that up as related? Male circumcision generally refers to a reduction (generally to the point of full amputation) of the male prepuce (foreskin) so it seems related to the topic of clitoral hood reduction, which is a reduction of the female prepuce, also sometimes done to the point of full amputation. Ranze (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clitoral hood reduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111005142211/http://www.newviewcampaign.org/userfiles/file/ACOG%20gen.cosm.surg.pdf to http://www.newviewcampaign.org/userfiles/file/ACOG%20gen.cosm.surg.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

ref removals by Barbara

@Barbara (WVS): upon looking at some of your removals of sources, I can't help but view this as being a bit reckless. Sometimes URLs die, that doesn't mean that the ref was never any good. Where possible I think you ought to do a bit of looking for a replacement URL rather than removing a reference entirely.

Template:citeweb has a field called |deadurl= and you can fill it in as "yes" if you want to report that a URL is no longer accessible. This is far preferable to simply removing the URL altogether, since it gives an opportunity to possibly locate an archive or an alternate URL to make the source checkable again.

As an example in special:diff/707681820 you removed http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1586/17474108.4.2.101 saying "content was not contained in the source". The quoted material was very much in the source, I know because I added it in 2013 after checking it.

What I wish I had done, but I was not aware of how to at the time, was backed it up on the Wayback Machine to avoid this sort of problem.

I can see why you may have thought that URL was a failure. If you visit it, it simply redirects you to http://tandfonline.com/

However if you had dug deeper, you would find that the file does exist on the new site: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1586/17474108.4.2.101

It is unfortunate that the Expert-Reviews.com > TandFonline.com file move did not include more specific redirects, but part of the benefit of our having a quote is you can search a segment of the quoted text to relocate it within a searchable file such as a PDF.

Before you continue to remove any more content, could you please re-check what you removed and whether or not it is truly absent as you say? Perhaps you might add it back if you could relocate it, or barring that, ask others about locating the material before you scrub it from the page?

I'll start by adding this back and then check what else has been removed to see if it is salvageable. This time 'round I'll try to submit it to Wayback so we can do a pre-emptive archive link. Ranze (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring that reference. I actually do not enjoy doing that since I am uncomfortable with working against the whole idea of adding to the 'sum of human knowledge'. I am thankful that you have the skill and background to correct my error and were able to update the URL to its correct 'address'. Of course, I can retain a reference if I can relocate it, but I was not aware how do that. What is your suggestion regarding the asking of someone else about the reference? A talk page inquiry? Are there editors who specialize in looking up lost links? If you could direct me to them I would certainly consult them before deleting references. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

Bus Bax, when it comes to the lead image, I reverted you because File:Clitoral hood reduction in adult caucasian female.jpg is clearly presented as a "before and after" image and is very educational for the topic at hand. By comparison, you combining File:Labiaplasty with clitoral hood reduction and Princess Albertina piercing 1.jpg and File:Labiaplasty with clitoral hood reduction and Princess Albertina piercing 2.jpg does not have the same effect. Apparently, both are "after" images, and the captions you used drew attention to the piercings. The caption should not be about the piercings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Balance of article

My attention was attracted to this article via the AN/I discussion of Jessicapin's edits and talk page comments. That editor is currently blocked; I'm pinging her as a courtesy. Seeing that she had the last edit to this article, I checked and reverted it, then reverted most of her previous changes as unsupported and opinion-based, with removal of a block of referenced material. However, there was a kernel of validity to the points she made in her edit summaries: the article cited at length reports of patient satisfaction after elective surgery and did not mention in the lede that ACOG has strongly recommended not representing it to prospective patients as without risk. I left in the first part of Jessicapin's section on Criticism, added the ACOG recommendation as well as the patient satisfaction studies to the lead, and somewhat condensed the summary of those studies. I have also moved the sentence on WHO classifying it as a type of female genital mutilation to the top of the Criticism section (I haven't checked the history of when that sentence was added.)

As a layperson, I think we need to say more about how far this procedure resembles female genital mutilation, and bring the point currently made only in a footnote about Islamic thought on the matter out into the article text. It may be that we draw a clear distinction, despite the WHO statement, but it needs to be clarified. Beyond that, I leave it up to the experts in medical sources to determine how to balance the article between the plastic surgery viewpoint and the statements of risk. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)